Bloghttp://roaafrica.org
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 07:14:47 +0000en-gbEssay Competition: How can Young People Strengthen Accountability in Achieving the SDGs?http://roaafrica.org/index.php/media-center/blog/item/227-national-essay-competition
http://roaafrica.org/index.php/media-center/blog/item/227-national-essay-competition

Background of Competition:

This competition is organized and facilitated by the Reality of Aid Africa and Junior Chamber International Nairobi Chapter and will run between 1st November 2016 – 15th November 2016. The essay competition is part of efforts to curate young people’s views on the Second-High Level Meeting (HLM2) by the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC). GPEDC is an inclusive multi-stakeholder partnership that brings together the full range of development actors to ensure that finance, knowledge and policy have maximum impact on development results. The Global Partnership sustains political momentum for more effective development co-operation based on the shared principles of country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and accountability. The Essay competition is being rolled out ahead of HLM2, which will be taking place in Nairobi from 28th November to 1st December 2016. More details on HLM2 can be found here

The competition engages students in tertiary institutions to apply their research, analytical, and writing skills, and/or personal experiences to develop captivating articles on the role young people play as active development actors. Particularly, the articles should discuss how the principle of Accountability can be strengthened towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) under the topic: “How Can Young People Strengthen Accountability in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals?”

Objectives:

1.Valuing student and youth agency for effective development cooperation.

2.Creating awareness on development effectiveness in Kenya.

3.Promoting the achievement of Agenda 2030 and its linkage to accountability and development effectiveness.

Competition Timeline:

Activity

Time

Call to Participation Disseminated

1st November – 15th November 2016

1hr Twitter Chat on Youth & Accountability

9th November 2016

Submission Deadline

15th November 2016 Midnight

Adjudication of Essays

16th November – 17th November 2016

Announcement of Winners

17th November 2016

Prize Giving during National Multi-stakeholder Meeting

18th November 2016

Guiding Questions

·What do you understand by the terms Accountability, Sustainable Development Goals and Development Effectiveness?

·What is the linkage between Accountability and the Sustainable Development Goals?

·What active role can young people play in mobilizing for accountability to achieve the SDGs?

·Entry must demonstrate knowledge of 2030 Agenda, Development Cooperation, and Development Effectiveness, as well as suggest ways young people can help ensure accountability to the Sustainable Development Goals.

·Entry must be an original piece of writing i.e. not published elsewhere or submitted to other competitions. Plagiarism will lead to automatic disqualification.

·Entry must be submitted in either Microsoft Word format or PDF Format. No other formats are acceptable

Collectively, diasporagroups, which includes migrants, immigrants, refugees, is one of the most marginalised sectors of the society. Understanding the issues of diaspora and migration should be taken within the context of domestic and global structural inequality.

In the recent decades, the world has seen the plight of laborers and professionals from developing to developed countries in search of better work opportunities. Most of the Diasporas were forced out of their own countries because of the prevailing social and economic inequality, i.e. lack of jobs, landlessness, and the yawning gap in living standards and wages. Some of them have also complained of unequal access to public services, e.g. health, education opportunities, which also leads to rural to urban migration within countries. The world has also seen forced migration and increased exodus of people, both domestically and internationally, due to wars and conflicts, and climate catastrophes. The UNHCRreported that in 2013, there were 51.2 million people forcibly displaced worldwide. There were 16.7 million refugees at the end of 2013, 50% of whom are under 18 years old. IDPs number 33.3 million while the number of stateless persons could not be determined, but is approximated at 10 million people at the end of 2013.

While it is recognized that their activities are engines of growth at the national and global levels, and most of them face human rights violations and social discrimination, diasporas are marginalised in any participation in the development agenda. Even in policy arenas, there has been little discourse on the relationship of the diaspora and development, more so, with development effectiveness. Ironically, the remittances and labour value of Diasporas (both temporary and permanent) are cited by some as potential huge sources of development finance. Currently, they directly contribute to the gross national indices of both the sending and receiving countries.

According to the World Bank (as cited by IBON), ‘remittances sent by migrant workers to their homelands far outperform official development assistance (ODA) funds and is second only to foreign direct investments.’According to the International Organisation for Migration, remittances from Diasporas globally can directly contribute to reducing poverty, foreign reserves and balance of payments of their country of origin.4 Diasporas also contribute to the economic activities and growth of their host countries. The same report of the IOM argues that migration brings ‘macroeconomic benefits’ such as “mitigation of labour shortages enrichment of human capital and the job opportunities and wealth which result from migrant entrepreneurial activities.”5 While migrants’ remittances are important in keeping sending countries’ economies afloat, massive labor export robs the sending countries both skilled and professional labour which leads to brain and brawn drain. These phenomena lead to weak domestic economic foundations necessary to build national industries and self-supporting national economies.

Migration and official development assistance. The basic reasoning when relating migration to official development assistance, as Lacomba and Boni (2012) have noted, is that greater ODA would result to economic and social ‘development’, thus addressing the causes for migration. According to them, “ODA is a suitable tool to increase development levels and so reduce migrant exits from developing countries,”9 especially since a number of developed countries would not want to accept more immigrants.

However, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (1993) as cited by Lacomba and Boni, has already “recognised aid initiatives related to migration have generally been disappointing, both as regards rural development programs to prevent depopulation of the countryside and industrial development programs, which had not achieved a geographically equitable distribution of income, but rather had accelerated the migration of the people who were living in those areas.”

Another observation on the failure of ODA is that of Arango (1995), who states that “the addressees of international aid rarely coincide with migration candidates, because the aggregated benefits of the former are hardly effective in deterring the latter. In addition, if cooperation programs generate, as is usually the case, regular connections with donor countries, they may play the role of migratory networks and, thereby, increase the possibilities of migration.”

The 2009 report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) shows that countries with medium levels of development, migrants’ remittances exceed developmental aid, while for countries with lower levels of development, the opposite is happening.Lacomba and Boni argues that the attempts to ‘promote one in order to reduce the other [remittances v. aid]’ have not translated into the ‘expectations’. They have argued that “[t]he agendas of the most developed states in their bilateral relationships with migrant issuing countries have established the terms of the debate and have largely distorted the nature of the link. Regardless of whether a direct relationship between migration and aid may be established, bilateral policies have tended to take aid as a tool to exert pressure on the countries of origin, so that they have greater control on the exit of their citizens. The connection between development aid and policy strategies for regulating migration promote the risk to turn aid into a hostage of migratory policies, inverting the terms of the relationship.

Nevertheless, development aid should be solely based on the needs of developing countries, and not on the migration policy of donor countries.”

The CPDE recognizes the need to provide spaces for Diasporas to advance their rights, interests and aspirations. It is important to strengthen their ranks, as well as their reach in all levels to continue advocating for social justice and human rights. They need to influence important policy arenas at the global and national levels, as well as mobilize communities in support of their calls.

Statement to the roundtable 4 on creating enabling environment at all levels Private finance3rd International Financing for Development Conference (7-8 July 2015) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Private finance and business activities have increased in scope and volume, but investments often leave behind the poorest people and countries. Investments that do reach low income countries tend to be concentrated in economic infrastructure, extractive industries or are agricultural investments leading to displacement of large populations.

Business enterprises should thus align with the aim of achieving a combined economic, social and environmental impact hence ensure sustainable development. In this context, we stress that corporate accountability begins with private companies contributing their fair share in taxes to public resource mobilization.

The central role that private finance has been given in the current discussions for development financing remains an area of concern. This is particularly with regard to the utilization of Aid as a catalyst and blended finance for crowding in private sector. Evidence of private sector participation in key social sectors including health and education show reduced accessibility to the essential services. Blending finances does not show reduction in pricing or increase in accessibility among the poor population.

Creating enabling environment for business only makes sense when it also includes creating an enabling environment for CSOs who are the main watch dogs in the context of development results, environmental and as well as labor rights. Governments must thus put in place the right policy and regulatory framework that guarantees enabling environment for CSOs.

Creating an enabling environment for the private sector must include important components that deliver development effectiveness results. These must include democratic ownership, inclusive partnership, transparency and accountability and development results. The foregoing only can happen in an environment where there is respect of human rights, strong and effective institutions as well as strong political leadership. Where PPP is promoted as a policy option for financing development, key measures should be put in place including feasibility studies and auditing criteria that include sufficient safeguards to ensure affordability, quality and inclusion of citizens.

The legal, policy and institutional framework must thus lead to corporate reporting on their development results. An enabling environment framework therefore must provide clear guidelines on a country-by-country reporting basis for all large companies following the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Reliance on the UN Global Compact principles has proved inadequate and inappropriate to respond to women’s human right abuses, especially from transnational corporations. Mandatory rules and accountability mechanism to ensure private sector compliance with internationally agreed social and environmental standards, and all human rights can help ensure it delivers positive sustainable development outcomes. The important role of the domestic private sector cannot be over emphasized in Africa. It must be supported through the creation of an enabling environment relevant to their niche and stage of development. Governments must facilitate their access to resources and capacity development. We must build their capacity to deliver on sustainable development objectives without additional transaction cost.

"The Uganda National NGO Forum in collaboration with Reality of Aid Africa Network have organized a two day Pan African CSO conference in preparation for the third United Nations International Conference on Financing for Development in Addis - Ethiopia. The proposed meeting will take place in Entebbe Uganda on the 7th and 8th of July at Imperial Golf Hotel. The meeting will bring together over 70 delegates from across the continent.

The conference seeks to debrief and acquaint the participants on the process and the status of the Addis Ababa outcome document, develop key common messages for the African CSOs delegations towards the CSO and the Official UN FFD outcome documents, and issue the African CSO statement on UN FfD process.

The Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) will take place on 13-16 July 2015, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and will bring together Heads of State or Government, ministers for finance, foreign affairs and development cooperation, and other special representatives. The conference will result both in an intergovernmental negotiated and agreed outcome. The conference will seek to Review the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus and Doha Declaration on Financing for Development; Address new challenges in the mobilization and effective use of financial resources for sustainable development; and Reinvigorate the Financing for Development follow-up process.

As the world prepares for the Financing for Development conference, it is important that we take stock of the current financing architecture; the use of both domestic and foreign resources, public and private resources and innovative financing mechanisms.“It is important to deliberate on the challenges caused by corruption, capital outflows and trade imbalances as these have an adverse impact on financing for Development” Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic DevelopmentHon. Caroline Okao

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have over the years become channels for social solidarity, service and mobilization to enable people to better claim all their rights to improve conditions of life and to build a democratic society. Through CSOs, people actively express their ‘citizenship’ in relation to the accountability of state and government obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. Alone and in collaboration with CSOs and other actors, CSOs act in development to carry out mandate that includes but isn’t limited to delivery of basic services and essential infrastructures at local level, particularly in social services such as health protection and care, education, water and sanitation, while empowering communities to seek fulfillment of their right to these services from government; Engaging communities, civil society, the private sector, local government authorities and other development actors to collaborate and seek synergies based on mutually agreed development priorities and approaches; and Monitoring government and donor policies and development practices, through policy research and development, policy dialogue and facilitating democratic accountability for excluded and marginalized populations, based on local knowledge.

Suffice to say therefore, that CSOs are a vibrant and essential feature in the democratic life of countries across the globe. All governments, as signatories to the Paris Declaration and the AAA, are to work in partnership with all development actors, including CSOs, to create enabling environments that extend their commitments from aid to development effectiveness. CSO development effectiveness speaks to the impact of CSO actions for development. These actions for development will be effective if they bring about sustainable change that addresses the causes, as well as the symptoms, of poverty, inequality and marginalization. For CSOs, development effectiveness is linked to multi-faceted human and social development processes directly involving and empowering people living in poverty and discriminated and marginalized populations.

For CSOs, development effectiveness requires openness to many development alternatives, which are increasingly informed by human rights, environmental sustainability and improved living standards. People living in poverty and marginalized populations have unequal access to development resources. This inequality has persisted not only because of limited capacities and finances for development, but also because of the concentration of socio-economic and political power and barriers to gender equality and rights of minorities. Effective CSO development action, therefore, involves direct engagement with populations living in poverty, not as abject victims, but as development actors and political proponents for development in their own right.

At the 2008 Accra High Level Forum, all donors and governments committed “to work with CSOs to provide an enabling environment that maximizes their contributions to development”. And one of the key civil society expectations from Busan was a firm, clear and explicit commitment towards providing an enabling environment for civil society, in the face of a wave of restrictions and attacks on CSOs across a wide range of countries. Unfortunately, since then, many CSOs, North and South, have experienced deteriorating enabling conditions for their work. Although governments made explicit commitments to provide an enabling environment for civil society, civil society around the world has seen a regressive trend of shrinking space, and is facing various legal, policy and regulatory barriers as well as unwarranted harassment and persecution. Paragraph 11(b) of the Busan outcome document stipulates that all development actors, including CSOs, should ‘align their efforts with the priorities and policies set out by developing counties’, but this statement should not lead to governments to encroach upon the independence of CSOs, their role as watchdogs and their pursuit of innovation.

CSOs, as recognized development actors, have shown their commitment to improving their effectiveness in development through their constructive engagement in the Busan process, and must continue to be included in the dialogue. However, global partnerships and international negotiations will only be successful when the enabling environment for CSOs is fully respected. Without guarantees for an enabling environment which respects the fundamental freedoms of civil society, CSOs are unable to play their full role as development actors.

Acknowledging not only their contributions, but also their weaknesses and challenges as development actors, CSOs have affirmed their commitment to take action to improve and be fully accountable for their development practices. They have done this by unanimously adopting the Istanbul principles for CSO Development Effectiveness, which are the result of thorough consultations with thousands of CSOs in more than 70 countries and sectors. The Istanbul Principles are the foundation for the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness , adopted in June 2011 at the Second Global Assembly in Siem Reap, Cambodia. It is a shared framework of principles that defines effective CSO development practice and elaborates the minimum standards for an enabling environment for CSOs, while at the same time promoting civil society’s essential role in the international development system. This framework is therefore the basis for CSO engagement and collaboration with all development actors to achieve the goals of the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF-4). It also sets out guidance for interpreting and aligning CSO practices with the Istanbul Principles in diverse local and sectoral settings.

The Istanbul principles as a measure of CSO development effectiveness are as explained below:-

1.Respect and promote human rights and social justice: CSOs are effective as development actors when they develop and implement strategies, activities and practices that promote individual and collective human rights, including the right to development, with dignity, decent work, social justice and equity for all people.

2.Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women and girl’s rights: CSOs are effective as development actors when they promote and practice development cooperation embodying gender equity, reflecting women’s concerns and experience, while supporting women’s efforts to realize their individual and collective rights, participating as fully empowered actors in the development process.

3.Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation: CSOs are effective as development actors when they support the empowerment and inclusive participation of people to expand their democratic ownership over policies and development initiatives that affect their lives, with an emphasis on the poor and marginalized.

4.Promote Environmental Sustainability: CSOs are effective as development actors when they develop and implement priorities and approaches that promote environmental sustainability for present and future generations, including urgent responses to climate crises, with specific attention to the socio-economic, cultural and indigenous conditions for ecological integrity and justice.

5.Practice transparency and accountability: CSOs are effective as development actors when they demonstrate a sustained organizational commitment to transparency, multiple accountability and integrity in their internal operations.

6.Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity: CSOs are effective as development actors when they commit to transparent relationships with CSOs and other development actors, freely and as equals, based on shared development goals and values, mutual respect, trust, organizational autonomy, long-term accompaniment, solidarity and global citizenship.

7.Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning: CSOs are effective as development actors when they enhance the ways they learn from their experience, from other CSOs and development actors, integrating evidence from development practice and results, including the knowledge and wisdom of local and indigenous communities, strengthening innovation and their vision for the future they would like to see.

8.Commit to realizing positive sustainable change: CSOs are effective as development actors when they collaborate to realize sustainable outcomes and impacts of their development actions, focusing on results and conditions for lasting change for people, with special emphasis on poor and marginalized populations, ensuring an enduring legacy for present and future generations.

The essential characteristics of CSOs as distinct development actors – that they are voluntary, diverse, non-partisan, autonomous, non-violent, working and collaborating for change – are the foundation for the Istanbul principles for CSO Development Effectiveness. These principles guide the work and practices of civil society organizations in both peaceful and conflict situations, in different areas of work from grassroots to policy advocacy, and in a continuum from humanitarian emergencies to long-term development. The “Toolkit for Implementation of the Istanbul Principles” , with further elaboration of guidance and indicators, will enable CSO actors to adapt and work with the Framework in the context of their organizational mandates and program realities.

However, while CSOs are independent and autonomous, they are not development actors working in isolation. Their capacities to live up to principles for development effectiveness are affected by the actions of other development actors. CSO development actors are profoundly affected by the context in which they work. Progress in realizing the Istanbul Principles in CSO practice depends in large measure on enabling government policies, laws and regulations consistent with the Istanbul Principles. Guided by these Principles, CSOs are committed to take pro-active actions to improve and be fully accountable for their development practices. Equally important will be enabling policies and practices by all actors. Through actions consistent with these principles, donor and partner country governments demonstrate their Accra Agenda for Action pledge that they “share an interest in ensuring that CSO contributions to development reach their full potential”. All governments have an obligation to uphold basic human rights – among others, the right to association, the right to assembly, and the freedom of expression. Together these are pre-conditions for effective development.

All development actors must therefore continue to work together to advance human rights, gender equality and social justice through reforms in development cooperation. The International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness, with its principles, norms and guidance, is a significant CSO contribution to these reforms. But in the absence of some basic minimum enabling standards on the part of donors and governments, CSOs will be thwarted in their implementation of the Istanbul Principles.

Christine Saru is a program associate working under the research program dealing with issues of Policy space and Enabling Environment for CSOs in Africa. Among the countries that have benefitted and continue to benefit from this program include: Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Lesotho, Burundi etc. She is also in charge of the execution and operation of the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) Platform whose African secretariat is hosted by the organization.

As we converge in Seoul Korea next week to review progress since Busan, I am left with a bitter sweet taste in my mouth. Bitter because we are yet to firmly locate the structure for domestication of the Busan agenda at the national level, and sweet because some regions, building blocks and task teams have turned out to be true champions in taking the Busan agenda forward more boldly than the national level initiatives.This year marks the third since the adoption of the Global partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC), and I must say the outcome of this important meeting has continued to mean different things to different stakeholders. It has depended enormously on their level of interest in different aspect of the principles. The voluntary nature of the outcome, allowing countries and stakeholders to get away with just about anything, has not helped in consolidating the role of Busan outcome in the Global Partnership Effective Development Co-operation. But one thing that has remained constant is the Spirit of Busan.

Let us for example take the hosting of global meetings; the 2014 High Level Meeting in Mexico was by most accounts a success. But this was not always going to be the case. It took the true spirit of Busan to pull it all together at the last minute. I remember Mexico exercising total leadership in drafting the outcome while entertaining very little, if any, input from the Joint Support Team, Steering Committee - let alone the GPEDC Co-Chairs. These important structures were reduced to mere spectator status, briefed every now and then but prevented from fully engaging in the process. It took a lot of interventions from other stakeholders who felt left out to convince Mexico that the spirit of Busan demanded a participatory process that required all voices to be heard, not just in hearings and submissions to the Mexican draft team but also in the actual drafting of the final outcome document. Nevertheless, I must congratulate Mexico for eventually working through the Steering Committee and the GPEDC Co-Chairs to produce a truly multi-stakeholder process.

Fast forward to the Busan Monitoring Workshop in Seoul, the first review of progress on the Busan commitments. The Government of Korea volunteered to host these workshops as a sign of its commitment to the success of the GPEDC agenda. This is more than welcome. However, given its importance, the process needs to be properly anchored within the GPEDC process. In the spirit of genuine inclusiveness, all stakeholders – civil society in particular - should be part of driving this agenda. The structures of the GPEDC are there to facilitate this. The GPEDC Co-Chairs are important for the sole purpose of generating and sustaining the political support towards the implementation of the Busan agenda. The Steering Committee should use such meetings to receive feedback and address the structural and implementation challenges that come with the implementation of the Busan commitments. The Joint Support Team, an important fulcrum to this process, are not only key in the preparations of the technical issues but are also key in providing a strong linkage and support between the political, strategic, and technical work.

However my sense is that the organizers of the Seoul workshop have failed to fully engage these parties. The Joint Support Team, for instance, appears to be a spectator in this process, not because they choose to be, but because a clear framework for hosting events by countries or institutions to advance the Busan agenda is lacking. Ideally, they should have been involved in the preparations for the workshop beforehand, in the development of the agenda, the production of concept notes, policy papers, and setting up of clear goals in the context of advancing the Busan partnership principles with the host country in a multi-stakeholder process. Instead, preparations initiated late and there were signs of miscommunication and difficulties in coordination between CPDE and the Seoul organizers in the lead up to the workshop.

What all these portend for the future of inclusive and accountable partnerships that enable the monitoring of progress on Busan commitments is unclear. Concerns have been raised that countries or institutions with resources can carry on with their pet projects independent of the Global Partnership, without a clear framework of engagement with GPEDC, let alone with the broader vision of Busan. Clearly a workshop that claims to monitor progress on development commitments, must itself learn from the successes that CPDE and GPEDC as platforms with a focus on inclusive partnerships have achieved. Initiatives such as IATI, Effective Institution platforms, and the Task Team on CSOs Enabling Environment and Development Effectiveness, have provided ways on how to manage and operationalize an inclusive development agenda going forward. Such processes can provide lessons for future monitoring workshops. Regional initiatives such as the NEPAD/AU action plan for implementation of the Development Effectiveness agenda and Asia’s regional platform on the implementation of the Busan Agenda also provide avenues for generating and sustaining political momentum for the domestication and implementation of Busan at the regional and country level. These certainly offer practical ways to take the Busan agenda forward and offer some of the most effective tools and structures through which global indicators on GPEDC can be monitored and measured.

However, there is an urgent need to discuss the weaknesses in the structural linkages between such important initiatives with the rest of the GPEDC structure, if we are to ensure consistency and effectiveness of development efforts at all levels. As one of the driving forces in instituting inclusive partnership since Accra, civil society must be at the heart of this endeavor - institutionalized in all monitoring bodies that emerge from these processes.

Above all, Seoul must embody the principles of Busan, and make a meaningful contribution toward the implementation of the Busan commitments.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vitalice Meja is the Coordinator of Reality of Aid Africa Network- A pan African Network working on Poverty Eradication through Effective Development Co-operation. He is also a member of the Civil Society Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE).

Interview with Vitalice Meja on the Future of development Cooperation in the post-2015 eraBringing the future of the development cooperation to post 2015 era

1.What is the future of development cooperation particularly in Africa?

Development cooperation scope is shifting focus from the north-south approach to a more south-south approach.This cooperation will only develop well if nurtured depending on the level of preparedness, creating an enabling environment and ensuring that a strong institutional and policy framework is in place that caters for all the major players involved.

2.Are you satisfied with the progress in strengthening effective development cooperation? What milestones do you feel the event achieved and what challenges are still looming in the development cooperation progress?

Progress in strengthening the effective development cooperation has been very little. As we are well aware African governments are signatories to the Busan framework that calls for domestic ownership, transparency and accountability and partnerships for development. Having this in mind then we see that there is a lack of operative and clear frameworks to domesticate ownership. The lack of accountability waters down the measurement of results. An inclusive framework is vital going forward. It is evident that CSOs are facing shrinking space and lack an enabling environment despite their significant role in the development agenda as they directly engage with the world’s citizens in poverty eradication. As CSOs were reiterate the increasing urgency and need for governments to view the CSO community as partners in development cooperation and hence assist the efforts of our work. Regarding milestones, there have been great strides towards this agenda. We see that governments have instituted reforms around public finance management systems. Strong accountability institutions have been created and increased transparency in budgetary processes has been strengthened effective development cooperation.Above all, setting the agenda for development has been an important step in ensuring eradication of poverty and stimulating industrial reforms. Response to donors

3.Why is Monitoring and Accountability in development cooperation so important?

Monitoring and accountability helps to assess the impact of the development projects. With a proper framework we are able to measure, change tact through midterm reviews, get feedback from the public and ensure that the projects implemented are people centered. It is important that the monitoring and accountability framework is participatory to harness reviews that will assist in developing better poverty eradication strategies that are relevant and effective.

4.How can CSOs engage effectively in development cooperation? What is their role?

The civil society organizations are central to this agenda as 99 percent of their work is geared towards eradication of poverty. Therefore, they are central to this call and hence are a voice from the grass roots which is essential in ensuring that the development projects and frameworks put in place are actually relevant, well executed and effective to the development agenda. These groups engage in neglected matters that are vital to an inclusive approach to development cooperation.

Vitalice Meja is the Coordinator of the Reality of Aid Africa Network, a pan African initiative that focuses on lobby and advocacy for poverty eradication policies in the international aid system and development cooperation.

The private sector received recognition in the Paris Declaration (2005), the Accra Agenda for Action (2008) and the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (2011) as an active actor in the development discourse, as a source of financial flows, and as a benefactor from an enabling environment for investments at the country level. A significant number of countries now highlight private sector development as a key element of poverty reduction on national development strategies.

As the world prepares for the final review of the achievement of the millennium development goals in 2015, assessing how the global partnership has facilitated the achievement or lack of achievement of the MDGs will be crucial. RoA Africa would like to focus specifically on the quality and quantity of financing for development and how these elements of development co-operation have adjusted to the demands of the financing needs of the MDGs.

Real access to and use of data is crucial for development co-operation, and for the billions of people whom this co-operation aims to benefit. For development co-operation stakeholders, real access to data allows for transparency as well as better planning, targeting and review. For beneficiaries, real access enables ownership and accountability, while strengthening participation. As we deepen the implementation of the four key Busan principles, we must have a revolution in both access to and use of data in our development co-operation. Good data is essential in order to involve all people interested in delivering development results. It is also vital in enhancing transparency and accountability.

However, we must realise that this will not be a one-off exercise. It will not be achievable at the flick of a switch. It is going to take a lot of hard work, exercising political will and leadership for institutional and legal reforms, capacity building, and behavioural change.

Efforts towards a data revolution are underway and encouraging. Global and national initiatives have attracted development providers and recipients alike, improving access to information. The International Aid Transparency Initiative is working on the global front, while several initiatives such as Kenya’s E-PROMIS exemplify national efforts. However we must observe that neither global nor national initiatives have attracted all relevant players. IATI remains a coalition of the willing, while national governments struggle to get their development partners, including South–South partners, to supply correct and timely data. More positively, we can see that there are systems out there that can improve data access both at the global and national levels.

Despite having systems to improve data access, bureaucratic procedures and political considerations still pose challenges to providing timely information. Lots of data supplied to the recipient country are not only outdated, but sometimes inconsistent with the information held by the provider country’s headquarters. This affects analysis and programming. Furthermore, few development partners are able to provide forward-looking data, making it impossible for actors in the recipient country to plan. Furthermore recipient Governments have increasingly failed to capture adequately ODA flows in their national budget as well as their medium term planning instruments thereby compromising the integrity of these planning instruments as the data is never quite forthcoming in a timely manner. For civil society organisations, this problem is compounded by the technical nature of the data, as well as by the political considerations of recipient governments before releasing such information to the public. Data access seems to be a preserve of the executives and not the general public and the codification of such information reflects this mindset. The view is that such information may be too politically sensitive to release to the public.

To combat this, we must invest heavily in the infrastructure and institutional frameworks necessary for the data revolution to take effect. Institutions must be capable of receiving, reviewing and processing data in a timely and effective manner. They must also be able to ensure the accessibility of this data to all who may need it. We must address the legal and regulatory impediments that impinge upon access to information.

Governments must also be willing to receive and process various forms of information from various stakeholders, including data beyond financial flows. For example, data from civil society on any negative impact of development programmes on communities, violations of human rights and abuse cases, domestic and sexual violence against women also need to be accommodated in the new data revolution.

While access remains key, data use is also important. The data revolution will have reached its objective when it has increased democratic ownership, strengthened partnerships and led to better development results. In this regard, we must build the analytical capacity of the institutions receiving data. This will not only require the technical aspects of capacity building but also human and financial resources. For millions of citizens around the world, data usage only becomes relevant when it empowers them to hold governments to account and to claim their own rights from the relevant institutions. Data use should not lead to ‘business as usual’. It must bring about a total behavioural change in addressing the real needs of the people as well as leading to a better enabling environment for civil society initiatives.

Vitalice Meja

I am a specialist in development policy analysis in the areas of development cooperation, economic development, poverty reduction policies and micro finance as it relates to NGO – government and intergovernmental organisation. I currently Co-ordinate the Reality of Aid Africa Network – A pan African Network working on Poverty Eradication through Effective Development Co-operation. We are an integral part of the CPDE involvement with the implementation of Busan partnership agreement. I am part of the Technical working group of African Platform on development effectiveness charged with the responsibility of advising on the implementation of the Busan Outcome document as well as African consensus on development effectiveness.